User talk:Koavf/Archive010
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:Koavf. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
 User talk:Koavf archives | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Please do not modify other users' comments or formatting.
Fair use rationale for Image:AConversationwithRobertPlant.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:AConversationwithRobertPlant.jpg. You've indicated that the image meets Wikipedia's criteria for non-free content, but there is no explanation of why it meets those criteria. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If you have any questions, please post them at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.
Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 18:09, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Substantial edits at the Dorje Shugden article
Dear editor I like to draw your attention to that specific article, Dorje Shugden, which was substantially changed by a group of three new editors, without any discussion on the talk page. Rather one of the new editor revealed: "Many of these changes were discussed between at least three of the editors." which must have happened outside of WP, because there is no discussion on the talk page or their WP-accounts. One of the new editors claimed: "You seem to be the only person who accepted this article as it was. If you check you will see that the changes made make this article more neutral and unbiased then it was before previous edits." If I check I see the article omitted different POV's, deleted verified passages, included passages from anonymous websites and turned the article to a more bias Pro-Shugden POV. I'd like to ask you to check that and to give your opinion or to collaborate if there is a need for improving the article, so that we can have an unbiased, neutral, well-informed article which fairly presents all POV's. Thank you very much, --Kt66 (talk) 19:39, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
- I left a note there now, I also informed other editors of the article but one said, this kind of Spam is not appropriate. So I think at least there is now some attention on it. --Kt66 (talk) 20:11, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you, you know better how to inform and what is acceptable and what not. I just looked on the history of the article and wrote persons who made contributions, so I found you in the history. Nice to meet you. :-) --Kt66 (talk) 20:49, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Marvel titles
Is there a reason that you're depopulating? - jc37 05:53, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
- Rationale All of these comics are already in a subcategory (e.g. Category:Punisher titles.) Cf. Wikipedia:Categorization and subcategories. By the way, thanks for asking respectfully and not being aggressive; you have no idea how much I appreciate that. -Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
- Fair enough.
- To take it a step further, though, I shouldn't have had to ask. (I merely wish to save you from needless drama and possible discord.)
- Please use more accurate edit summaries when using tools like AWB (and really, anytime).
- Something like: Removing member of subcategory from parent category
- If you'd like/need further help with configuring AWB, I'll point to you User:Black Falcon. (I may ask him to check on you anyway : )
- Thanks for the clarification. - jc37 06:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
- Of course That's an area where I'm spotty - sometimes I'll throw in "Remove cat. per WP:CfD" or the like, but you're right, it should be there always. Thanks. -Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:05, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
- Uh huh. "(clean up using AWB)" just doesn't explain, especially for mass multiple page changes - except for truly minor edits/cleanup, Thanks again : ) - jc37 06:10, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
- Of course That's an area where I'm spotty - sometimes I'll throw in "Remove cat. per WP:CfD" or the like, but you're right, it should be there always. Thanks. -Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:05, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Category deletion on my user page
How do you edit user pages, by hand or by bot/script? - LA @ 09:46, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
- Please skip my page when removing categories, I like keeping the red links. Thanks! - LA @ 20:05, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Category removal
I see that you've removed Category:Greek Wikipedians from Template:User Greek, with an edit summary of: "removing deleted cat."
Needless to say, it hasn't been deleted, or even nominated for deletion in the last week or so.
And I can't find the category deleted in this edit or this edit, among many others.
I'm concerned now.
What's going on? - jc37 18:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
- Greeks The category from the user template was a mistake - I appreciate you pointing it out; I must have gotten it confused with the ancestry category that was actually nominated. The other edits are automatic conversions that are suggested by AWB, e.g. turning HTML tags to wiki markup. -Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:59, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for the clarification. I think you may be a good and enthusiastic editor, for the most part. However, your use of AWB looks to be in violation of it's rules of usage. I've asked Black Falcon for his insight (as I mentioned I would), and am contemplating whether your usage should be reviewed for removal. This isn't personal in any way. It's just that your edits in the last few days, at the very least, have been, in my opinion, reckless. (See Be bold, but not reckless in editing, for what I mean.) This could be considered disruptive activity.
- I'm going to respectfully ask that you refrain from further usage of AWB or similar tools until this is resolved.
- Thank you for your consideration. - jc37 19:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
- No worries Your comments are well-taken and I'll abide by your request. In point of fact, I'll take this opportunity to look at WP:AWB again. -Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:26, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you for understanding. - jc37 19:33, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
- No worries Your comments are well-taken and I'll abide by your request. In point of fact, I'll take this opportunity to look at WP:AWB again. -Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:26, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I've commented at User_talk:Black_Falcon#AWB_concerns. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:30, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
- Hi, just to follow up: there've been some additional comments at my talk page that you may want to take a look at. Cheers, Black Falcon (Talk) 07:08, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Please leave my user page alone. Thanks. Paul Beardsell (talk) 02:06, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
- (1) I do not claim exclusive ownership of my home page. I ask you to obey the convention of leaving it alone. (2) The removal of the category in question was done improperly - the correct process was not followed. (3) The adoption at Wikipedia of the term "Linux" to refer to the operating system more properly referred to as GNU/Linux takes a particular POV in a highly politicised debate in the Free &/or Open Source movement(s), and should be deprecated as per NPOV. (4) There is no need to remove the category, it can co-exist with the others. Paul Beardsell (talk) 12:18, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
| You are cordially invited to participate in WikiProject Christianity
The goal of WikiProject Christianity is to improve the quality and quantity of information about Christianity available on Wikipedia. WP:X as a group does not prefer any particular tradition or denominination of Christianity, but prefers that all Christian traditions are fairly and accurately represented. |
|
- Tinucherian (talk) 14:23, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks Why did you invite me? -Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:09, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
- You are receiving this invitation because you are a member of one of the related Christianity Projects and I thought that you might be interested in this project also - Tinucherian (talk) 03:30, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- Ah Makes sense. I'll take a look. I don't know if it would be fair for me to commit right now. -Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:06, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Links
Do you know that you should not link years by themselves? You should only link 3 December 1986, like so.
Speedy category moves
Just a reminder, do not make any category moves unless the original category has been tagged for renaming (speedy or regular). If necessary, tag the category and relist it at CFD for two more days, so people have a chance to comment if they want to. Thanks! --Kbdank71 18:37, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks Sometimes I get a little ahead of myself. -Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:31, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Image copyright problem with Image:Pink Floyd - Oh, by the Way front.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Pink Floyd - Oh, by the Way front.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by STBotI. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 04:36, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Image copyright problem with Image:Pink Floyd - Oh, by the Way back.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Pink Floyd - Oh, by the Way back.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by STBotI. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 04:36, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
not waiting 48 hours
Hi. You may want to pay a little closer to the time stamp on CFD speedies. They are supposed to be up for 48 hours before being handled. This one wasn't. As of this notice, it still had roughly 8 hours to go.--Rockfang (talk) 06:22, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
moving articles
Hi there, you moved articles like Assyrians/Syrians in Germany to Assyrians and Syrians in Germany with the comment: remove hierarchy. Should articles Assyrians/Syriacs in Lebanon, Assyrians/Syriacs in Syria, Assyrians/Syriacs in Sweden and Assyrians in Turkey also be moved to new titles like Assyrians and Syriacs in ... ? AramaeanSyriac (talk) 14:22, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
I like to get your opinion
Hi Justin, regarding the Shugden Article, there is a Western group which makes claims of "banning" and "persecution" which is a theory of that group. They are very powerful making Media campaigns, and past press articles found out, that almost nothing they claimed were true (The Guardian). Now they started again a media campaign and of course whish to put it in that article. I have nothing against it, but it must also be wighted by evidence, and what they claims contradicts all other sources, as it was also in the past. About their actual campaign and view have reported only two very minor (as far as I can see) online press articles. My request to you is: how deals WP with that? Can you offer advise at the talk page? You can see in the history how I changed Truthsayer62's inclusion. Do you think the addition of the POV template is reasonable? Thank you very much, --Kt66 (talk) 17:25, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you! --Kt66 (talk) 20:24, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Hy Koavf
Hy dude, i'm new at this, i guess i would like for you to help me. How do you merge two articles? Because Cayo Sila Godoy and Sila Godoy talk of the same guy. Thanks, greetings from Paraguay. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fernando B. (talk • contribs) 20:50, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Could you please clarify what you mean by the db tag on this image? J Milburn (talk) 17:34, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- Oh, sorry. I'll contact the IP. J Milburn (talk) 18:29, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Hello! I've been getting a fair amount of commentary [here] and [here] regarding this map. Although I put together the initial map, I have other priorities at the moment. As someone deeply interested in the subject, would you or someone you know be interested in making any necessary edits? Thanks. Konchevnik81 (talk) 20:43, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
South Park
Why do you keep deleting my post? (Dude7324 (talk) 06:11, 1 May 2008 (UTC))
New Project
Myself and several other editors have been compiling a list of very active editors who would likely be available to help new editors in the event they have questions or concerns. As the list grew and the table became more detailed, it was determined that the best way to complete the table was to ask each potential candidate to fill in their own information, if they so desire. This list is sorted geographically in order to provide a better estimate as to whether the listed editor is likely to be active.
If you consider yourself a very active Wikipedian who is willing to help newcomers, please either complete your information in the table or add your entry. If you do not want to be on the list, either remove your name or just disregard this message and your entry will be removed within 48 hours. The table can be found at User:Useight/Highly Active, as it has yet to have been moved into the Wikipedia namespace. Thank you for your help. Useight (talk) 02:41, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi,
after reading Wikipedia:WikiProject Music/MUSTARD#Capitalization you should realise that a capitalised “the” is wrong in a lemma like this for Meet the Eels. –(de)jello ¿? 01:34, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Replaceable fair use Image:Casey Rose Wilson.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Casey Rose Wilson.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:
- Go to the media description page and edit it to add
{{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template. - On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.
Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.
If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Save-Me-Oprah(talk) 04:51, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
your continued disregard for CfD processes
Hi, Koavf. I noticed that in the MILF discussion, you emptied the category out of sequence. While clearly this category will be deleted, possibly speedily, I don't understand your constant compulsion to act before the discussion has closed. This is going to get you banned if you keep it up. It's strange to me, because your intentions are clearly in the right place, and you're usually right on point. But you're making people—including me—upset for what appears to be no good reason. Getting banned for doing things everyone will eventually want done makes no sense to me. User:Good Olfactory has asked you to stop, User:Jc37 has asked you to stop, and now I'm asking you to stop. I'd like you to consider heeding our advice, or I expect the next person to comment will do so by cutting off your editing privileges. That can't be what you want, right?--Mike Selinker (talk) 14:51, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- (And yes, I've seen your response on MS's talk page, I'm neutral to that specific CFD discussion)
- As we all suggested previously at User talk:Black Falcon, your enthusiasm is great, but please stay within process.
- What you're doing, could be claimed to be an action of being bold. However, that implies not being reckless. And this isn't the first time that others have had such concerns. (Even since the last major discussion we had.)
- I'm sure that everyone appreciates the help, and your enthusiasm. But if someone determines that you're becoming disruptive, you may find yourself blocked as a result. Or at least lose some priviledges, such as the use of AWB.
- So please take what these Wikipedians are suggesting to heart. I can fairly guarantee that Mike Selinker, for one, will not intentionally steer you wrong. Black Falcon noted what I believe to be true, that you're open to advice and not intent on being disruptive. Please do not cause his (or others') faith in you to seem misplaced. - jc37 21:03, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- Sure And I think I was being bold without reckless; I can't imagine how removing someone from the category MILF actresses is reckless - at least in terms of this kind of encyclopedia. If Wikipedia was a different kind of project in which that was an acceptable method of categorization, I could see your argument. I have also been reckless before - by carelessness or by deliberation. I'm open to that charge. In this case, I feel like I'm on solid ground. Your points are well-taken, though, and that is precisely why I appealed to Wikipedia: pages rather than my own sense of what seems reasonable. Within the terms of the guidelines and what can be immediately deduced from them, I feel like I've done the right thing. -Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:08, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- That is a fair enough summary of WP:BOLD.
- I'll merely note in response that Kbdank71 restored the category after you depopulated it.
- And while sometimes a category may undergo change during a CFD discussion, due to or as a result of the discussion, typically it's contrary to the guidelines to depopulate a category which is up for CFD before the discussion is closed. This is partially due to the nature of categories. (It's rather difficult to see the prior contents of a category, without searching down whomever deleted the contents.) So such an act can be truly disruptive to the discussion underway.
- So anyway, I suppose I should clarify that this should be considered a warning.
- If you depopulate a category while it's under discussion at CFD, you may be blocked and possibly have your AWB priviledges temporarily or permanently revoked.
- I already know (from your comments) that you are taking this seriously. I'm merely making this clear for procedural reasons. - jc37 21:28, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- Sure And I think I was being bold without reckless; I can't imagine how removing someone from the category MILF actresses is reckless - at least in terms of this kind of encyclopedia. If Wikipedia was a different kind of project in which that was an acceptable method of categorization, I could see your argument. I have also been reckless before - by carelessness or by deliberation. I'm open to that charge. In this case, I feel like I'm on solid ground. Your points are well-taken, though, and that is precisely why I appealed to Wikipedia: pages rather than my own sense of what seems reasonable. Within the terms of the guidelines and what can be immediately deduced from them, I feel like I've done the right thing. -Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:08, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- Right And you're saying this because you think this is simply how someone else will take it and interpret my actions in light of guidelines, or because you know that what I've done is actually in opposition to the letter of the law? I'm not trying to be aggressive here; I'd really like to know if there is a rule somewhere that states to not do as I've done, rather than an inference that someone else could make based on his understanding of the guidelines. -Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:46, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- That categories should generally not be completely depopulated during an ongoing CFD discussion? It's rather long-standing convention, and should probably be noted "somewhere". (I'll go look after posting this.) However, something need not be codified on a page to be a guideline or policy. In some cases (such as this) it merely need to be current practice or convention. - jc37 21:50, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- At a minimum, Koavf, you have at least acknowledged in the past that emptying a category during a CFD "might be frustrating" for other users. Since you at least recognize this, I would think that in the interests of adhering to Wikipedia:Don't be inconsiderate, if nothing else, you should not do this anymore, as numerous editors and admins have requested of you. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:32, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- Right And you're saying this because you think this is simply how someone else will take it and interpret my actions in light of guidelines, or because you know that what I've done is actually in opposition to the letter of the law? I'm not trying to be aggressive here; I'd really like to know if there is a rule somewhere that states to not do as I've done, rather than an inference that someone else could make based on his understanding of the guidelines. -Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:46, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- Let me see if I can illustrate why this action of yours is frustrating. When a matter comes up on CfD, one very common action is to look at the articles in the category to see if they belong there. You have made that impossible. So what you're saying is, "For this discussion, I have decided on the information you will evaluate, and I have chosen it to be none at all." That is disrespectful of me and everyone else. Do you still want to debate whether this is okay?--Mike Selinker (talk) 23:27, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- Consideration In terms of being considerate, your arguments make sense. -Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:30, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
For the record, I read what you wrote over at Mike's, and I agree. Without sourcing, I have no problem removing an article from a category. The MILF category definitely falls under that, and is almost guaranteed to go. But seeing as there was a CFD that was ongoing, people have the right to know what they are discussing. There are some people that like to keep even a category like that. A better solution would have been to just join the discussion, pointing to any number of reasons for deletion. --Kbdank71 20:45, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks Your input is much appreciated. -Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:05, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- Glad to hear you understand, Justin. By the way, I found the guideline Jc was looking for. It's the second paragraph of WP:CfD: Unless the change is non-controversial (such as vandalism or a duplicate), please do not remove the category from pages before the community has made a decision. I guess it's reasonable to ask what is "non-controversial," and I would say my strict-constructionist answer is, "It's vandalism or a duplicate."--Mike Selinker (talk) 11:54, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- Good find MS, thanks. I found several places where it was indirectly referred to, but hadn't yet found one where it was explicitly stated. - jc37 04:12, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- Glad to hear you understand, Justin. By the way, I found the guideline Jc was looking for. It's the second paragraph of WP:CfD: Unless the change is non-controversial (such as vandalism or a duplicate), please do not remove the category from pages before the community has made a decision. I guess it's reasonable to ask what is "non-controversial," and I would say my strict-constructionist answer is, "It's vandalism or a duplicate."--Mike Selinker (talk) 11:54, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- For what it's worth, I completely support Koavf's removal of such a category regardless of whether it was being discussed on any discussion page. Any user can remove unsourced content that breaches our policies at any time. Particularly when it is unsourced content on articles on living persons. Particularly when it's something like THIS, which is so obviously outside our policies as to be indefensible. And especially so when absolutely nobody is defending it. There was absolutely no opposition posted to the CfD whatsoever.
- Process does NOT trump doing the right thing on Wikipedia. Particularly when the removal is, in fact, completely uncontroversial at all except that it, heaven forfend, gets in the way of the mechanical application of process. I count myself thoroughly disgusted at what I read here above. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 09:39, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- I'll make a rare exception to my holiday from community matters to echo Morven's comments. Consideration of a category for deletion is absolutely not a reason to stop, and should on no account stop, someone removing inappropriate instances of that category. Never, not at all, not on any account. Such proceduralism is the antithesis of Wikipedianism. It mustn't be done. I hope I've made myself clear. This is a very, very well established principle on Wikipedia. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 13:03, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- So everybody gets to decide to remove everybody else's tools for evaluation from the discussion? That's why "Categories for discussion" exists. The word "discussion" suggests there should be adequate time for discussion. That's not proceduralism, that's just respect for others.--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:37, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- If appropriate editing removes all trace of the inappropriate category, that is the correct outcome. Editing an article, particularly removal of highly inappropriate content, can never be pre-empted by a discussion with the aim of removing the category. It was particularly distressing to see that someone threatened (however impotently doesn't matter, the threat was made) that a person who performed good edits could be blocked. It needs to be said that the basis of that threat, too, is absolutely false. We don't block people for ignoring stupid processes, we reward and praise them for doing the right thing. The rules are only valid and applicable where they help us to improve the encyclopedia. Where they prevent us doing that, they must be ignored. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 15:47, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- There's nothing false about the basis of the "threat." One of the reasons for a block is "Encouraging a more productive, congenial editing style within community norms." The community norms are, when regarding categories under discussion only, spelled out on the front page of CfD: "Unless the change is non-controversial (such as vandalism or a duplicate), please do not remove the category from pages before the community has made a decision." But you've said you don't believe that discussion trumps individual desire in this case, so there's no real point in arguing it further. I'll just say that Koavf, who is kind enough to let us have this debate on his page, seems to understand that a number of us (but clearly not all of us) want everyone to follow the community discussion process in all cases. All right, I think everybody's made their points, and we can move on.--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:37, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- we reward and praise them for doing the right thing Pfft, the hell we do. We get smacked with a large trout and dragged to DRV, where the "right thing" is overturned in a flurry of "bad admin, you ignored consensus". You can get distressed or disgusted all you want, but that doesn't stop the fact that around here lately, the people doing the "right thing" are more often than not labeled the bad guys and driven away. Process does NOT trump doing the right thing looks really pretty on paper. You're fooling yourself if you think it's reality. --Kbdank71 16:37, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- If appropriate editing removes all trace of the inappropriate category, that is the correct outcome. Editing an article, particularly removal of highly inappropriate content, can never be pre-empted by a discussion with the aim of removing the category. It was particularly distressing to see that someone threatened (however impotently doesn't matter, the threat was made) that a person who performed good edits could be blocked. It needs to be said that the basis of that threat, too, is absolutely false. We don't block people for ignoring stupid processes, we reward and praise them for doing the right thing. The rules are only valid and applicable where they help us to improve the encyclopedia. Where they prevent us doing that, they must be ignored. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 15:47, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- "If appropriate editing removes all trace of the inappropriate category, that is the correct outcome. "
Let me make sure I understand that. So even though something is currently under discussion, you feel that any editor may take action even while the discussion is ongoing, just because that editor makes the personal decision that their action is "appropriate" based on an incomplete discussion, or their own choice?
In other words, just because you may be doing what you may think is right, doesn't necessarily mean that the 'community may agree. We are a community, after all. (Which is part of "why" we discuss, and have such tools as determination of consensus or WP:BRD.)
And I note that he didn't first snow close the discussion as delete. Which is something he isn't supposed to do anyway as a non-admin - though noting that I've seen you strongly argue against that, Tony. So you'll please pardon me if I weigh your comments in that light.
So no notice. (Snowing the discussion, or even noting "somewhere" a BLP closure/deletion.) No asking anyone else to take such an action. (He was just in a discussion concerning his potential mis-use of tools, which involved several admins. Surely he could have asked at least one of them - including me - to take action if it was so vital to act "now".) So no, this would seem to be just a pre-emptive action, with the rest being just "fluff". - jc37 08:22, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
AfD nomination of Trevor Lyman
An article that you have been involved in editing, Trevor Lyman, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trevor Lyman. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice?
Michael Chopra
Hello, in Your recent edit to the Michael Chopra article why did you remove the category? Bit Lordy (talk) 23:22, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I am wondering why you removed the category:Jainism from this article. I am sure you must have a good reason, but I am curious to know. Secondly what is the significance in in changing the quotes from “ to ". Any stylistic concerns ? Do let me know. Thanks--Anish (talk) 03:40, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Proposed deletion of Bad Dude in Love
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Bad Dude in Love, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? LegoTech·(t)·(c) 03:46, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Redundant Categories
Hi, I've noticed that you have deleted some "Redundant Categories" lately and while there are a few that I agree with, there are others that I wanted to get your opinion on concerning the secondary categorization rule. Mainly it is the deletion of "American Businesspeople" and/or "African-Americans" for articles also tagged with "African-American businesspeople." It might seem redundant at first, but redundancy is based off how people search for articles.
When an article is put into a subcategory based on an attribute that is not the first thing most people would think of to categorise it, it should be left in the parent category as well.
This includes articles placed in ethnic subcategories within national menus, for example articles in Category:African American baseball players should also be left in Category:American baseball players.(WP:SUBCAT)
I undid a couple already that were on my watchlist, but I wanted to see if you agreed before I continued. Thanks! Krushdiva (talk) 07:40, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Cool...that is fair enough. Krushdiva (talk) 07:59, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Edits with HotCat
Hello. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary, which wasn't included with your recent edit to Bob Barr. Thank you. [1] [2] I eventually summized you were removing the article from parent catagories of Category:Members of the United States House of Representatives from Georgia, of which the article is also a member. I agree with that change; thanks for doing it. I'm still learning, so actions like that are puzzling without a summary. -Noca2plus (talk) 00:39, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
not waiting 48 hours #2
You did it again. This one has 14 hours to go yet.--Rockfang (talk) 07:04, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, if you include reminders from me, it's actually #3. If you include Koavf's pre-conversion (?) to CFD actions, it's more like #5 or #6, and that's just in the time I've been on WP. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:55, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Block notice
You have been blocked for 48 hours for violation of your 1RR parole at pan-Arab colors per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Koavf. Your rollback permission has also been withdrawn for inappropriate use. You may contest this block by placing {{unblock|reason}} on this page, which you can still edit while blocked, and you can re-request rollback at WP:RFR. Stifle (talk) 13:07, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Hello again. The Highly Active Users project has gone through a complete revamping per popular demand. We believe this new format will make it easier for new editors to find assistance. However, with the new format, I must again ask you to verify your information on this page. I attempted to translate the data from the old version to the new, but with the extensive changes, I may have made some errors. Thanks again. Useight (talk) 04:01, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- No, it updates automatically based on the length of time since your last edit. HAU is showing that you're online right now. You don't have to manually update anything. Useight (talk) 20:23, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
WP:RM
I noticed that you were adding comments to the move: Ukrainian John Peel Sessions → Українські Виступи в Івана Піла in the "Contested" section. As it says,
- With the exception of a brief description of the problem or objection to the move request, please do not discuss move requests here. If you support an incomplete or contested move request, please consider following the instructions above to create a full move request, and move the discussion to the "Other Proposals" section below. Requests that remain incomplete after five days will be removed.
So if you wish to indicate support for the move, your only choice is to create a full move request. Anything else is just deleted in five days. I occasionally rescue requests out of the contested section, but never on the basis of anyone else's comments, only on my own view of the merits of the move. I would hope that anyone else would do the same. By the way I really see no hope for the move. It isn't even in the English alphabet, let alone the English language. Many users computers can not display cyrillic, and they come out only as ????? question marks. Oddly, mine now does display cyrillic, I have no idea why, it wasn't that long ago that I was trying to figure out how to get it to do so. 199.125.109.126 (talk) 17:15, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- Hello Thanks for your note. -Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:19, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
V for Vendetta - "DC Titles" cat
Hi Koavf
You removed the "DC Titles" category from V for Vendetta as it's "redundant" - I can't see another cat that would cover this cat, could you clarify?
Cheers! This flag once was red 20:16, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- Got it, cool, thanks for clarifying! I wasn't looking deep enough...
- This flag once was red 20:20, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
WP:CFD speedy
Would you please stop removing [3] the "surfbreaks" entry [4] from the CFD:speedy listings? Listings should only be removed once they are "dealt with", i.e., (1) renamed; (2) withdrawn; or (3) moved to a full CFD. You are simply removing it from the listing but doing nothing else — the CFD speedy rename tag is still on the category and it's not been added to full. If you are not going to add it to the full listing, please leave it alone until someone else does. Simply removing it from the listing accomplishes nothing and is not helpful. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:51, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
World history maps category changes
Hi Koav, I noticed you were working on category changes for the World history maps I uploaded. if it needed done, I thank you for doing so. Is there anything I can do in the future when uploading or categorizing the maps, to save you trouble next time? Thomas Lessman (talk) 12:37, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
American basketball players
I don't agree that the Category:American basketball players is redundant. That category doesn't define "Players in US basketball leagues." The subcategories of Category:National Basketball Association players and Category:Women's National Basketball Association players are not reserved for Americans; Pau Gasol and Lauren Jackson aren't Americans, and they're in those categories. So there is now no category that claims these players are Americans. I would suggest reverting those changes and changing the header on Category:American basketball players. Just my opinion.--Mike Selinker (talk) 00:28, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
- My point is that in my opinion, it's wrong to remove Category:American basketball players from any American basketball players, since all other American athletes have an "American (X) players" category." It doesn't matter to me whether they played for a US league or the US national team; many Americans played pro basketball but not in the US, and many players not from the US played in American leagues. The athletes you removed from the category are still American basketball players, and they should have a category called "American basketball players" to reflect that. Again, just my opinion.--Mike Selinker (talk) 01:55, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
- This issue is addressed, almost directly, in WP:SUBCAT:
- When an article is put into a subcategory based on an attribute that is not the first thing most people would think of to categorise it, it should be left in the parent category as well. This includes articles placed in ethnic subcategories within national menus, for example articles in Category:African American baseball players should also be left in Category:American baseball players.
- Since most people probably think of someone being an "American basketball player" at least as often as a "US national team basketball player" or a "North Carolina basketball player", the Americans category should also remain, I think. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:01, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
- Feedback welcome WP:SUBCAT also says "In straightforward cases an article should not be in both a category and its subcategory." I have no idea why it would be advantageous to have categories for both North Carolina basketball players as well as American basketball players, unless the latter (gargantuan) category would be depopulated to the smaller one (or, in this case, fifty or so subcategories.) Also, as I pointed out discussing that same rule, it's unclear and impossible to know. How can someone know what would be the first, second, or third method of classifying someone as a basketball player? Surely, I would think of Michael Jordan as a basketball player prior to thinking of him as a specifically American basketball player, right? And if I was to think of what type of basketball player he was, I would most likely think of him as a Chicago Bull before an American as well. And, if he was in the category of Olympic basketball players of the United States, it would be painfully obvious that he was an American basketball player as well, right? This rule is nonsense, counter-intuitive, and impossible to know. It is also self-defeating to the purpose of subcategories at all, or at the very least, it would result a large number of categories being repopulated to massive numbers. Cf. Wikipedia_talk:Categorization#Subcategorization_and_the_.22secondary_categorization_rule.22
- Since most people probably think of someone being an "American basketball player" at least as often as a "US national team basketball player" or a "North Carolina basketball player", the Americans category should also remain, I think. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:01, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
- As for what Mike said, I think that all "American (X) players" categories should be removed as well; there are only 24 hours in a day, though. You are correct that we should be consistent in this. Again, I think there is some miscommunication, though. You wrote: "It doesn't matter to me whether they played for a US league..." You realize that the NBA player categories are not subcategories of American basketball players, right? The examples you gave above are perfect reasons for why they are not: some NBA players are not American. Consequently, they should not be classified or subclassified as such (unless "American basketball players" is supposed to include anyone who plays basketball for an American team of some sort.)
- Finally, let me point out that the text on Category:American basketball players explicitly says "Also, a player should not be in a subcategory of this category and this one." Which is exactly what I did: I removed players in subcategories from the main category. At this point, I either really cannot understand your objections, or I think they are ill-founded. Please feel free to explain further. -Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:36, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
- I think the key part of what you quoted is "In straightforward cases an article should not be in both a category and its subcategory." As you illustrate, we don't know what the first thing in a person's head will be in these cases. Ergo, it's not straightforward, which means if in doubt we should probably include the American one and the subcategory(ies). Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:10, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
- Sure But as I said, it seems painfully obvious that anyone and everyone who played for the U.S. Olympic team is an American basketball player, as well as anyone who is a Kentucky basketball player. The only way someone could not understand that is if that person didn't know that "U.S." refers to the nationality of "Americans" or that Kentucky is a part of the US. Neither of those is very obscure or controversial and that information is pretty easily accessible from 1.) reading the article on that player, 2.) reading the article on Kentucky or the U.S. Olympic team, or 3.) looking at the categorization hierarchy. Again, it seems straightforward to me that they are American basketball players and categorizing them as such in addition to the subcategories they already have is a useless redundancy. (Which is probably why that is written on the page itself, although I did not write it.) -Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:47, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
- That may be so, but redundancy is not always "bad" — just going back to the original point — it's supposed to be in a sub and parent if the person is primarily thought of as being in the parent over the sub. If we don't know which is the "primary" category that most people think of, that suggests both should be used. I think it's impossible to generalise for all articles, as the instructions on the category have tried to do, it seems. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:08, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
- Again As I said before, it is not clear to me that Michael Jordan is thought of primarily or even secondarily as an American basketball player. Surely you would agree that he is much more likely to be thought of as a basketball player or a Chicago Bull prior to his nationality. By your reasoning, everyone in any subcategory of basketball players would also be in the category of basketball players and make a huge overblown category. That would be a bad thing. Since the rule as written is nonsense and relies on something unknowable, it is unintelligible and unenforceable. Also, as I have pointed out already, the page itself says that players should not be in that category as well as a subcategory. I cannot imagine how you can make a case for including someone in all of these categories when there is a clear hierarchy and it communicates no extra information to the user. How would it be helpful for someone to be categorized as both a basketball player from Kentucky and a basketball player from America and a basketball player and an athlete, etc.? -Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:24, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
- I think the key part of what you quoted is "In straightforward cases an article should not be in both a category and its subcategory." As you illustrate, we don't know what the first thing in a person's head will be in these cases. Ergo, it's not straightforward, which means if in doubt we should probably include the American one and the subcategory(ies). Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:10, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
- Finally, let me point out that the text on Category:American basketball players explicitly says "Also, a player should not be in a subcategory of this category and this one." Which is exactly what I did: I removed players in subcategories from the main category. At this point, I either really cannot understand your objections, or I think they are ill-founded. Please feel free to explain further. -Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:36, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
- It is perfectly valid to place players into a state category over a national category. However, this grouping hasn't taken hold yet. There are only three subcategories of Category:American basketball players by state. I would wait till there were a whole lot of state categories before starting the removal of articles from the main one.--Mike Selinker (talk) 07:28, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
- Granted I appreciate your concern, but I don't see any need to wait or value in it, personally. As soon as there is a category for Connecticut basketball players, they should not be in American basketball players as well. -Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:43, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Comment Hello. I see that you've taken hours to remove hundreds of articles from Category:American soccer players, and I see this discussion. So let me chime in with my opinions on this.
From your quote: "Surely, I would think of Michael Jordan as a basketball player prior to thinking of him as a specifically American basketball player, right?"
One question I guess what you're implicitly asking is if we're putting Michael Jordan in Category:American basketball players, why not go further and put it in Category:Basketball players also? Or perhaps Category:American sportspeople, or to the extreme, just plain Category:People?
My understanding is this. The value of having categories at the bottom of the page is for readers to find articles that are similar to the ones they're currently reading. So the value of having Category:American basketball players is that if they're reading the article of Michael Jordan, they may be interested in reading about other American basketball players, such as say Kareem Abdul-Jabbar.
So in some way your issues are legit. Certainly a reader can be interested in reading about another basketball player of any nationality, or another American sportsman, or just another random person (although that would be a bit stupid). The problem is, these categories tend to blow up in size very quickly, making navigation very difficult. So the consensus seems to be that the <nationality + occupation> categories balance similarity and size quite nicely. It is also extremely natural. Almost every article about a person start with "XXX is an American basketball player" or "YYY is a Spanish politician". You seldom see just "XXX is a basketball player" or "YYY is Spanish". And for your concern that people wouldn't know what categories they should add, I think almost everybody who has edited or read a few articles on Wikipedia know that the <nationality + occupation> categories are a staple of Wikipedia categorization, so your argument doesn't hold here. And as for you not thinking primarily of Michael Jordan as an "American basketball player", I think if you're asking people from outside the United States, he's certainly thought of as an "American basketball player", just as you would consider Pau Gasol a "Spanish basketball player", so please don't be American-centric here.
Another question you're posing is basically, why have the redundant categories of both Category:Basketball players from North Carolina and Category:American basketball players in the same page? My answer is this. Assume you're reading about Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, and now you click on Category:American basketball players, and then you ask "hey, where is Michael Jordan? I don't see him here." Actually, he's somewhere in one of the subcategories, Category:Basketball players from North Carolina. Yes, there's a way you can find him, but that would make navigation by category quite counter-intuitive to many users. So that's why there's this statement:
- When an article is put into a subcategory based on an attribute that is not the first thing most people would think of to categorise it, it should be left in the parent category as well. This includes articles placed in ethnic subcategories within national menus, for example articles in Category:African American baseball players should also be left in Category:American baseball players.
This is to make navigation through the categories helpful to the Wikipedia users, so they can easily access the other similar articles.
The final question is, say if we create the categories for basketball players of all 50 states, should we just move everybody to the subcategories and empty out Category:American basketball players? Perhaps. But for me, a basketball player is rarely connected with the state he/she comes from. Contrary to, say politicians, where you usually know the state he/she is associated with. So the <state + basketball player> categories are much less helpful than the <nationality + basketball player> categories.
In some ways, I understand many of your concerns. I think there are a lot inconsistency in the categorization scheme, not to mention there are just way too many useless and overspecialized categories out there. However, before you unilaterally proceed with these edits with such a huge scale, it would be nice that you consult with the guidelines and other editors and perhaps think it through before you proceed. The guidelines, however you disagree with them (I disagree with many of them), are there for some reasons that must be thought about by other people, that perhaps you haven't thought about. Chanheigeorge (talk) 01:29, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your suggestions and comments, which are very much appreciated.
Splitting the article: Yes. Since January that has been my opinion, but I do not understand the process. Since your comments, I did research in order to learn the procedures regarding the splitting of an article, without much success. If you or someone else will split the article into several articles with a disambiguity page, that would be a very welcome contribution. Would such a splitting be likely? I left my preferences for the new titles, etc., at the Discussion page there.
For the time being, I regularly check on it. Thanks. Elfelix (talk) 23:27, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Lord Lieutenants
Thanks for doing the Category:Lords Lieutenant of the Isle of Wight change, but see my recent addition at the top of WP:CFDS. This change may not need to wait the 48 hours, as I mentioned there. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:42, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
- Sure Did you get it? -Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:45, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
- What do you mean — did I make the change? Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:46, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
- Yes Were you giving me a friendly heads-up, or did you want me to undo it? Either way is fine with me. -Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:48, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oh, whatever you prefer you can do. I just thought you might be confused when I immediately reposted the one you renamed. If you want to rename it right away, I don't think that would be a problem, but you don't have to. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:57, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
- Ah All's well - thanks much. -Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:59, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oh, whatever you prefer you can do. I just thought you might be confused when I immediately reposted the one you renamed. If you want to rename it right away, I don't think that would be a problem, but you don't have to. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:57, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
- Yes Were you giving me a friendly heads-up, or did you want me to undo it? Either way is fine with me. -Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:48, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
- What do you mean — did I make the change? Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:46, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
List of descendants of Louis XIV of France
Thank you very much. You can either add a speedy deletion tag, as you did, or you can go to the CfD manual work page - WP:CFD/W/M - and add the category to the "Ready for deletion" section. Thanks again and all the best, Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:29, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Review help for Anekantavada
I can see that you have made substantial contributions to wiki and have an interest and understanding of Philosophy. Hence I request your assistance to make this article as a featured article. Users, Alastair Haines (talk · contribs), Qmwne235 (talk · contribs) Ruhrfisch (talk · contribs) have made a lot of improvements, but I still need more assistance which would be appreciated. Anekantavada is the most important principle of Jain philosophy and I hope it will be the first article on Jainism to qualify as FA. Thanks.
- Thanks for your note. I would also appreciate help on copyedits, stylistic improvements, reducing POV and wherever any citation is required, you can flag it or put it up on talk page. All this with any eye on FA :) --Anish (talk) 06:09, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
| This is an archive of past discussions about User:Koavf. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |